Mubadala names its deals but not its venture share

The record

Mubadala, the Abu Dhabi sovereign investor, discloses its technology investing differently from either Temasek or GIC. Its own What We Do overview page, retrieved 16 September 2026, lists 'Technology' as one of eleven named portfolio sectors alongside Healthcare, Financials, Real Estate & Infrastructure and others, and separately discloses a portfolio asset-class mix of 42 percent Private, 20 percent Public, 5 percent Credit, 17 percent Real Estate and Infrastructure, and 16 percent Alternatives. Mubadala's 2025 Key Investment Highlights page, part of its annual review microsite, lists individual 2025 transactions by name and, where stated, by committed amount.

What the sources establish

Mubadala's disclosure works at the level of the named deal rather than the aggregated venture percentage. The 2025 highlights describe, for example, Mubadala Capital's close of its first dedicated co-investment vehicle 'at more than US$550 million,' a US$600 million stake acquisition in Nord Anglia Education, and a US$19 billion deployment by the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, described on the page as 'Mubadala's indirect investment arm,' 'with top-tier GPs and fund managers' during 2025. The Our Strategy page states Mubadala invests through three approaches: a direct-investment approach, an endowment approach run by the Abu Dhabi Investment Council across five portfolios, and a 'GP-led approach' through Mubadala Capital, 'established in 2011,' its asset-management platform.

Scope and revision

None of these figures isolate venture-stage technology investing as its own reported total. The sector list names Technology as a category but the asset-class mix (Private, Public, Credit, and so on) is a separate cross-cut that is not broken out by sector, so a reader cannot derive 'percent of portfolio in venture technology' from Mubadala's own tables. The named 2025 deals disclosed on the highlights page are mostly credit, real estate and buyout-style transactions rather than early-stage venture rounds; this is materially less granular, at the portfolio level, than Temasek's sector-percentage table, even though Mubadala discloses more transaction-level detail than GIC does for any individual deal.

The decision in front of you

Anyone comparing sovereign investors' venture exposure should treat Mubadala's disclosure as deal-level rather than allocation-level, and should not infer a venture percentage of Mubadala's total portfolio from either the sector list or the asset-class mix, since neither is built to answer that question. This is an editorial reading of the difference in disclosure design, not a Mubadala statement.

• Does a cited Mubadala 'technology' figure come from the sector list, the asset-class mix, or a single named deal?
• Is the transaction being cited run through the direct-investment approach, the ADIC endowment approach, or Mubadala Capital's GP-led platform?
• Is a 2025 highlight being treated as representative of Mubadala's full venture activity, when the page lists only selected transactions?

Mubadala's own pages show a sovereign investor whose transparency is built around naming specific deals, not around publishing the portfolio-level venture allocation that would let its figures be compared directly to Temasek's or GIC's.